Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Challenge to blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A was rejected where inspection and recorded statements indicated availment of credit on disputed invoices; the impugned blocking was held to fall within the regulatory scheme and not amenable to interference. A jurisdictional objection that a subordinate officer effected the block was dismissed because blocking was shown to be authorised by senior officers. The court nevertheless granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and directed that the concerned officer hear the petitioner and decide the merits expeditiously, preferably within thirty days.
Challenge to blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A was rejected where inspection and recorded statements indicated availment of credit on disputed invoices; the impugned blocking was held to fall within the regulatory scheme and not amenable to interference. A jurisdictional objection that a subordinate officer effected the block was dismissed because blocking was shown to be authorised by senior officers. The court nevertheless granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and directed that the concerned officer hear the petitioner and decide the merits expeditiously, preferably within thirty days.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.